Written By: Aaron Worley
Special Contributions from: Andrea Skimbo & Marissa McIntyre – Oklahoma State University
You’ve likely heard the saying, “Find something you love to do and you’ll never work a day in your life.” But when passion doesn’t pay the bills, staying in a role you care about can feel impossible. Many professionals, including those in higher education, face financial pressure that forces them to search for better-paying positions. For institutions, frequent staff turnover is expensive and disruptive—especially when the turnover involves student-facing roles such as academic advisors. Understanding and addressing the causes of staff turnover is essential to protecting student retention and institutional outcomes.
I work as an academic advisor in a large university’s School of Business and have been in the field for eight years. In the year I’ve been in this office, which employs seven full-time advisors, we’ve experienced three departures (including my own arrival). A colleague of eight years recalls 11 advisor changes during her tenure. For simplicity, that averages out to about one turnover per year. That level of churn threatens the continuity of advising relationships that are critical to student success.
Academic advisors support students across academics, career planning, and personal challenges. Stable advising relationships help students navigate course selection, financial aid, internships, housing, and other milestones. When students can return to a familiar advisor, they feel connected and supported; this ongoing contact improves persistence and increases the likelihood of degree completion.
Retention is, in many cases, far more cost effective than recruitment. Retaining a student can cost as little as one-fifth of recruiting a new student. Advising programs that are structured, offer proper training, and incentivize strong advisors show higher success than programs that treat advising as voluntary or secondary. Research indicates that good advising can boost retention by about 25% compared with poor advising, and by roughly 40% compared with no advising (Cuseo, 2003).
Student retention is complex. Not all students have the same needs, and institutions vary in their capacity to support those needs. Resources matter: institutions with greater funding can invest in programs, hire qualified staff, and recruit more competitive student cohorts (Ashby, 2003). Campus climate and student social integration also play vital roles; scholars such as Tinto have shown that students who feel socially and academically connected to their institution are more likely to persist.
Student service offices have evolved to address a wide range of student needs. The quality of the institution’s environment—how it treats and supports students, the strength of peer relations, and the commitment of faculty and staff—shapes student confidence and success. To create a supportive atmosphere, colleges must offer comprehensive services, strong faculty engagement, and consistent, well-supported professional staff who remain in their roles to build meaningful relationships with students (Clewell & Ficklen, 1986).
Yet advising often suffers from low status within higher education. Because advising typically does not contribute directly to research outputs, grant generation, or conference activity, administrators may view it as secondary. This perception can translate into limited compensation and advancement for advisors (Cuseo, 2003). Many professional staff in student services hold advanced degrees and invest in ongoing training, but receive salaries that do not reflect their qualifications. As a result, advisors frequently leave for better-paying roles doing similar work.
Financial incentives can materially affect turnover. For example, research cited from the Carey School of Business at Arizona State University found that a 15 percent wage increase corresponded with a 13 percent reduction in turnover. However, institutions sometimes avoid such increases, preferring to replace staff rather than raise salaries. The traditional reward structure in higher education often prevents institutions from compensating committed professional staff appropriately, which undermines both staff morale and student persistence (Creamer & Scott, 2000).
Turnover brings direct and hidden costs. Beyond recruitment, hiring, and training expenses, institutions face exit costs, lost productivity during transitions, compensation for training periods, administrative overhead, and student dissatisfaction when services are inconsistent. A common rule of thumb in human resources research is that replacing an employee can cost, on average, around 150 percent of that person’s base salary—meaning a $30,000 position could cost an institution between $45,000 and $60,000 to replace (Deeds, 2012).
Minimizing turnover requires deliberate retention strategies: competitive compensation, clear career pathways, meaningful evaluation and reward systems, and intentional recruitment that matches candidates to departmental culture and expectations. Small investments in employee retention can deliver substantial returns in reduced turnover costs and improved student outcomes. Advisors need time in their roles to build trust and rapport with students; frequent advisor turnover undermines the mentoring relationships that promote student persistence and success.
To strengthen student retention, colleges should ensure that students consistently receive accurate information about academic support, career services, financial aid, and social supports from stable, well-supported staff. When administrators allocate adequate attention and resources to advising, the potential for advising to promote student retention is realized (The Education Trust, 2003). By recognizing advising as central to student success and compensating and supporting advisors accordingly, institutions can protect both their students and their bottom line.
Ultimately, student retention and staff retention are deeply connected. Investing in professional staff—through fair salaries, development opportunities, and institutional recognition—helps advisors stay, which in turn helps students stay and succeed. In an era of budget constraints, institutions that prioritize advisor retention will likely see stronger student persistence, higher graduation rates, and more stable, effective student services.
References
Ashby, C. M. (2003). College completion: Additional efforts could help education with its completion goals. Report to congressional requesters (Report No. GAO-03-568). Washington, DC: General Accounting Office. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED478814).
Churchill, W. D., & Iwai, S. I. (1981). College attrition, student use of campus facilities, and a consideration of self-reported personal problems. Research in Higher Education, 14(4), 353-365.
Clewell, B., & Ficklen, M. (1986). Improving minority retention in higher education: A search for effective institutional practices. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Creamer, E. C., & Scott, D. W. (2000). Assessing individual advisor effectiveness. In V. N. Gordon, W. R. Habley, & Associates (Eds.), Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook (pp. 339-348). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cuseo, J. (2003). Comprehensive academic support for students during the first year of college. In G. L. Kramer (Ed.), Student academic services: A comprehensive handbook for the 21st century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Deeds, P. (2012). The average cost of employee turnover. Retrieved from lifeislikethat.hubpages.com.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
The Education Trust (2003). A matter of degrees: Improving graduation rates in four-year colleges and universities. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Education.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Wyckoff, S. C. (1999). The academic advising process in higher education: History, research, and improvement. Recruitment & Retention in Higher Education, 13(1), 1-3.